element_inputFill text into an input field using its element ID, with options to clear existing content or assign via JavaScript.
向输入框元素输入文本。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | 要输入的文本 | |
| by_js | No | 是否改用 JS 赋值 | |
| clear | No | 输入前是否清空已有内容 | |
| element_id | Yes | find_element 返回的元素 id |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| message | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a write operation (input text), and the readOnlyHint=false annotation is consistent. It does not disclose potential side effects like triggering events or clearing existing text, but the 'clear' parameter is available. Overall, the behavior is transparent enough given the simple action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence without any redundant information. It is well-structured and directly states the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple input action, the description and schema provide all necessary information to invoke the tool correctly. There are no missing details about preconditions, return values, or side effects that would hinder an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides clear descriptions for all four parameters (element_id, text, by_js, clear), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding further.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to input text into an input box element. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like element_click, element_hover, and element_select.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as element_click or element_select. However, the name and description imply usage for entering text into input fields, which is clear enough for an agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.